(Get Answer) – shifting global power Recently, the concept of power has triggered much debate between the scholars and the general public on the international front. Power is usually defined as the ability to change others behaviour or situation to produce the desired results you want (Nye 1990). By itself, power is neither good nor bad. Further as Nye described there exists two main forms of power on the international front: hard power and soft power. Hard power is all about coercion diplomacy mainly through military intervention and foreign assistance-economic sanctions whereas soft entails involvement through co-option in order to obtain the preferred results, simply persuasion. Hard power contributes to confrontational policies amongst countries. On the contrary, soft power entails on sharing of common policies, cooperation and peaceful ways of solving conflicts in order to reach a common solution. In this respect, soft power is deemed as ineffective in realizing fast results though it has a long term impact and is also less expensive compared to hard power. However, the use of hard power has been declining as the 21st century progresses. In turn, soft power has taken the central position in the international relations. The combination of both hard power and soft power results to smart power which has been typical of the US administration under Barrack Obama (Wilson 2008). This paper will seek to analyse the importance of hard, soft and smart powers in the world of shifting global power.Hard power (also known as command power) refers to the ability of a country or political body to use its military strength or economic incentives to change others. Hard power has been on existence for long. Majority of scholar have emerged to explain this concept. However, scholars related to the public diplomacy and international relations have come up with the most explicit definitions. For instance, Joseph Nye (1990) defined hard power as the ability of using “carrots and sticks” of military might or economy strategies to make others follow what you want. According to the New politics of national Security hard power is the use of military might to meet the needs of a country. These include deployment of troops, precision munitions and naval assets to safeguard a nation’s vital interest (Campbell, and O’Hanlon 2006).Hard power is primarily used to induce compliance. The hard power strategy which have been mostly used for this purpose is military intervention. The 20th century is renowned for such plethora amongst many states that aimed to achieve their objectives. Such examples include Chna’s invasion of 1900 by 8 countries alliance aimed at quelling the Boxer rebellion; invasion of Poland by Germany in 1939 which caused the second World War; Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 in an effort to sustain the Afghanistan’s Marxist government; United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 targeting to destabilize Iraq ‘s weapons capacity. These are just a few examples of use of military might by states to achieve their objectives.Aside from using military intervention as the main coercive measure, economic sanctions were also used to achieve similar ends. The prime example of this measure is the US trade sanctions on countries like Iraq, Iran and Cuba during the latter half of the 20th century. For instance, the Iran’s Sanction Act of 1995 that was implemented to counter Iran’s nuclear initiative and also its alleged of Islamic Jihadists groups like the Hamas and Hezbollah (Katzman 2007). The Act was implemented to limit funding to Iran’s oil sector and infrastructure. By hampering the growth and development of Iran’s main sector of economy, petroleum, the United States looked forward to discouraging Iran involvement in unfriendly activities (Katzman 2007).On the other hand, use of threats either in military intervention or economic sanction is also an application of hard power. This strategy entails backing of one’s demands with threats of punishment for not complying . This coercive measure is considered credible and potent in persuading targeted countries to comply with the demands. Therefore, threats of military intervention or economic sanctions that are either explicitly or implicitly stated serves as a scheme of persuasive behaviour. The illustration of such coercive diplomacy is evident in Kosovo and between US and China in 1998 and early 90s respectively. In regards to Kosovo, 1998, the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement initiated by President Milosevic consent to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1199 was reached by NATO’s threat interventions to Kosovo through an air campaign (Leurdijk 1999) Likewise, the threats of economic sanctions triggered a Memorandum of Understanding between America and China over the IP rights (Baum 2001).Despite inducing compliance, hard power presents evident challenges about its wielder credibility and legitimacy. This particularly so for hard power initiatives that do not put into account of the international image of the country. For instance, if the credibility of a country deteriorates internationally, mistrust is likely to arise at the same time cooperation diminishing thus the country’s ambitions of achieving its goals is indirectly ruined. The outcome of US hard power intervention in edging out Iraq’s President, Saddam Hussein from power coupled with the handling of Iraq’s subsequent crisis provide such unsuccessful case. Besides ruining country’s credibility, others effects can occur like it is the case of Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 which led to worldly tension and eventual onset of the Second World War.In regards to soft power, Nye (2004a) described soft power as “the ability to shape the preferences of others” by influencing them to adapt the results you want. This is achieved by leading through an example as well as attracting and co-opting others to follow your way but not using commands like in hard power. However, both hard and soft powers are aimed at achieving the purpose through influencing others behaviour. The influence of hard power rest on impositions of threats whereas in soft power the influence is merely different. Soft power influence is far above persuasion or changing people/nations through arguments, although it is a core part of it. Most important, it is the attraction ability since attraction triggers acquiescence. Therefore, in respect to behavioural term, soft power is considered an attractive power where the soft power assets are the factors that yield such attraction (Nye 2004a).Soft power plays a significant role in nation branding which is an area of much concern within the international relations. This artificial concept to a certain extent has been regarded as an effective marketing tool for countries and public bodies in promoting their particular goals or objectives. However, due to the higher competition and the need for clear differentiation, branding strategies for a nation comprising of both tangible and intangible structures have to be formulated and implemented. The diverse nature of ‘nation branding’ permits existence of an affinity and connection between ‘nation branding’ and public diplomacy. These two dimensions are mainly employed in attracting the interest of others within the international politics and economics. Majority of scholars are of the idea that the progress of globalization, national image as well as reputation have become the most critical assets of national branding in the modern world. This can be achieved through commercialization of a nation’s identity alongside a more revised approach to international diplomacy. This will help to create prosperity, improve the international relations and finally address the major issues affecting the international community at large (Nye 2004b).Next, soft power enhances democracy in countries and between countries. Over the recent decades, the rush towards democracy dating from the end of the Cold War onwards to the continuing wars in the Arab Spring highlight the need for effective government structures worldwide. The rising demand for a representative system of governance has forced many long standing authoritarian and dictatorial regimes to review their stand locally and internationally. The relevance and significance of democracy is coined more on the interconnections between the understanding and fulfilment of political freedoms and economic needs over the democratic values it brings with it. Therefore, there is need for nations to install democracy that will offer them an entrance into a good international relation. Soft power secures the political as well as private rights, and further acts to ensure there is a flow of ideas and opinions peacefully directed towards a collective process in decision making. As the world is evolving, particularly in the developing nations, the call for democracy is becoming hard to suppress. Therefore, it is important for nations to facilitate properly the growing concerns of peaceful power transition through the spirit of cultural diplomacy and interaction globally. The “attraction” of democracy is neither ending sooner or remaining the same over time.However, it is necessary to lay down the situations under which soft power- attraction is likely to lead or not lead to the desired results. This is because soft power mostly depends upon the existence of ready initiators and receivers. Additionally, attraction has an impact in creating a general influence instead of producing easily visible specific actions. Nonetheless, the indirect impact of attraction and its diffuse influence bring a significant difference in reaching favourable results in bargaining situations. Soft power assets prove challenging to control since most the resources are beyond governments’ control and thus their impact rely mainly on acceptance by the receiving audiences. Furthermore, these resources work indirectly to shape policies and mostly take years to yield the expected results. Likewise hard power, credibility is crucial in soft power. Power has developed today as contest of competitive credibility. Traditionally power was typically about military or economic strength-holds but nowadays its ultimately about whose ideas win/attract.Relative to smart power, it is a combination of both hard and soft powers. Nye emphasized that effective foreign policies require to incorporate resources of both powers. Smart power help to revitalize diplomacy, strengthen alliances and re-engaged multilateral institutions. Additionally, smart power concentrates on economic recovery. Employing only one of the strategies proves inadequate in some situations like combating terrorism and war. Here, both strategies take course differently to achieve the same objective. For example, The end of Cold war is attributed to use of hard and soft power. Hard power was aimed to deter the aggression of the Soviet Union whereas soft power to erode the belief in Communism. As of 2009, smart power became a key principle of the US foreign policy under the administration of Obama which was affirmed by Senator Hillary Clinton during the confirmation hearing for her position as the US Secretary of State. In this respect, after three years the US had accomplished to end the Iraq war and started a transition in Afghanistan, thanks to smart power ( Lewis, and Walker 2009).Similarly, like other powers, the importance of smart power is to install compliance amongst different nations on various issues. However, the nature of the issue determines the form of power to be used like mentioned above. According to Nye this involves use of both military force and all forms of diplomacy like persuasion, capacity building, power projection and influence through ways which have social and political legitimacy and that are cost-effective. Smart powers have led to installation of peace and end of totalitarian regimes that threatens the world like it was during the Second World War and the cold war. Nevertheless, implementing smart power both locally and internationally involves development of legal frameworks. These legal frameworks are often difficult to arrive at due to the assymetrical threats present globally ranging from the financial crisis and growing income inequality to climate change, nuclear proliferation and international terrorism (Nye 2011).Overall, power is a core element of leadership locally and internationally. The power to influence or attract others to do or want what you want has its roots long in the history of human experience. Power is usually used to reach a certain set objective. However, this is achieved through various powers forms as discussed above. Hard power seeks to install compliance through military intervention and economic sanctions. This has proved successful on various fronts and ineffective as well. Secondly, soft power uses attractive measures like persuasion to achieve the objective. Finally, there are instances where neither of the above power forms prevail alone. This is where exercise of smart power is employed. Skilful leadership have always put forward and understood the power stems from credibility to legitimacy.The role of credibility is an important power resource. When the US paid little attention to issues of credibility and legitimacy in handling its foreign policy on Iraq war, it experienced a dramatic drop in its soft power. Nevertheless, this did not prevent its invasion of Iraq, but this led to US incurring higher costs than it would have been the case. Therefore, nations and leaders have to be keen on crucial choices they make about the types of power to use. However this is influenced by the present condition and nature of the circumstance at hand. Currently the geometry of global power is becoming more diffuse and distributed as the challenges become complicated and cross-cutting. Hard power strategies had been had to sell contrary to soft power which are easy but takes long to accomplish. In this regard, smart power is commonly used to suit both situations. However, building of coalitions for common use of power is becoming more crucial and complicated too.
